Barack Obama

Obama's Stumbling Bumbling Fumbling News Conference

We learned a few interesting things from what was said and what wasn't.

|

We learned a few interesting things from President Barack Obama's rambling, analogy-filled news conference Thursday.

We learned that there was a fumble. We learned that technology is hard. In fact, the president went on for an extended period of time explaining government's historical struggles with IT issues. Considering that the entire backbone of the law is dependent on this technology and expertise, how can anyone truly believe that the Nov. 30 deadline set for HealthCare.gov to work properly is going to be met? And why should anyone trust that IT will work better in the future?

We also learned, despite this traditional technology deficit, the president was not "informed directly" about the challenges facing the website, because he would never be "stupid enough to say this is going to be as easy as shopping around on Amazon or Travelocity."

We learned that buying insurance is complex business—more complex even than buying an airline ticket. It's not "like buying a song on iTunes," the president said. It's "a much more complicated transaction." But one of the selling points of Obamacare exchanges was that they would simplify the process. Exchanges were supposed to offer consumers no-hassle, straightforward choices.

And least surprising of all, we learned that insurance companies are about to be scapegoated for the entire mess. According to The Associated Press: "Insurance companies will be required to inform consumers who want to keep canceled plans about the protections that are not included under those plans. Customers will also be notified that new options are available offering more coverage and in some cases, tax credits to cover higher premiums."

So insurance companies that were canceling policies in compliance with Obamacare will now be blamed for failing to provide policies that probably no longer exist? Is it even feasible for these insurance providers to offer the same or similar plans to consumers who've already lost them?

In essence, it sounds as if insurance companies will be mandated to inform consumers about how awful their plans are and how wonderful the government's plan can be.

And what does this accomplish other than alleviating the political pressure today? Not much. At some point, these policies will be canceled, and private insurers will continue to abandon the individual marketplace.

We also learned that when it comes to Obamacare, process means nothing. Why does the president even bother signing laws passed by Congress if he can simply alter or ignore statuses within the legislation whenever the vagaries of politics demand it? Reading liberal pundits, it seems that if the core purpose has moral authority (the uninsured need help), anything goes when it comes to process. And when Nancy Pelosi was asked today what she made of the brouhaha surrounding Obamacare, she said: "We'll be good, we'll be good. We'll do what we have to do, and that's what we'll do." Indeed, they do. There are two legislative efforts underway to "fix" the core "incorrect truth" of Obamacare, so why do we need an administrative fix? If legislation was poorly written or unworkable, isn't fixing it a matter for Congress?

And Obama offered no answer for why he kept promising Americans that they could "keep their insurance if they liked it" long after he knew better. Though, he did point out that other Democrats were peddling the same line.

Finally, near the end of the news conference, the president made an interesting claim: Obamacare was really a choice driven by an incentive for stability, not disruption. "We chose a path that was the least disruptive," he said. Though pollsters rarely measure the importance of "stability" in American life, I think it's probably one of the most vital factors driving hostility toward Obamacare from independents and moderates. Everything about Obamacare implementation has created the perception of anarchy—the arbitrary implementation of laws, people losing the plans they have, the way it was passed and the problems it has caused in Washington—and this news conference only reinforced that perception.

NEXT: China Creates Another Exception to the 'One Child' Rule

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “We chose a path that was the least disruptive,” he said.

    Doing nothing is what is least disruptive. Passing a 2,000 page bill rife with executive discretion for waivers and allowances is not a bad candidate for “most disruptive.”

    1. What makes you think there is any authority for waivers and allowances in the bill? That’s giving them foresight there is very little evidence they have.

    2. You know who else “might have done nothing,” and defended having “met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program” in the midst of a ten-year economic depression he helped foster?

      1. Barney Frank ?

      2. “Proposals” to private business??? What part of mandate does he not understand? It’s almost as funny as “asking” the rich to pay a little mire.

        1. “pay a little mire”

          Spellcheck – it’s free!

          1. I fail to see the incorrect spelling there. What is contribution to the government except “a little mire?”

            1. Bingo, Noelle.

    3. my best friend’s ex-wife makes $74 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for five months but last month her pay was $21054 just working on the laptop for a few hours. explanation……………………..

      ???????
      http://www.tec30.com
      ???????

  2. So how incompetent did he appear on a scale of 1 to 10? 10 being hopelessly, utterly fucking incompetent.

    1. I think we’re well into “Well, let’s say this Twinkie represents the normal amount incompetence …”

        1. yep, he’s gonna need need a bigger boat.

        2. Obama: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and…

          Reality: Oh, I see. And most stupidity meters go up to ten?

          Obama: Exactly.

          Reality: Does that mean it’s stupider? Is it any stupider?

          Obama: Well, it’s one stupider, isn’t it? It’s not ten. You see, most political blokes, you know, will be registering at ten. You’re on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you’re on ten on your stupidity. Where can you go from there? Where?

          Reality: I don’t know.

          Obama: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?

          Reality: Put it up to eleven.

          Obama: Eleven. Exactly. One stupider.

          Reality: Why don’t you just make ten stupider and make ten be the top number and make that a little stupider?

          Obama: [pause] This stupid goes to eleven.

          1. I am emailing myself that dialouge so I can use it in the future. Thanks for the effort.

          2. Rob Reiner must be turning over in his pate’ to see his dialouge being used like that.

          3. eleven times eleventy

        3. It’ll be whatever number he wants it to be. He’s doing it all for the [DOWNTRODDEN DEFENSELESS GROUP DE JOUR HERE] man!

  3. In essence, it sounds as if insurance companies will be mandated to inform consumers about how awful their plans are and how wonderful the government’s plan can be.

    Let them. I forsee a million letters saying things like: “You may be eligible for $100 off your policy that will cost an extra $500 on the exchange.” and “The plan you are currently on doesn’t not cover maternity care and pediatric dental care.”

    In fact, I like this idea so much that I think the insurers should be REQUIRED to send a copy of each one of these letters to their local congressmen, the President himself, and to the news media, explaining EXACLTY why each of these policies fails to meet the “minimum standards” set by the law.

    I welcome such a rule. Bring it on.

    1. The “explanation” will look more like this:

      Dear Mr. Fubar:

      We as your insurer have a responsibility to you. Unfortunately we are no longer unable to meet that responsibility by continuing your coverage.

      Your plan will not be renewed and for that we are deeply sorry. Your plan is no longer available, but you can get more comprehensive coverage from your state or federal exchange.

      The government is here to save you because we are no longer able to meet our obligation to you.

      Sincerely,
      Your Capitalist Pig Insurer

      1. That’s some major league stupid ya got there!

        The govt REQUIRED the insurance cos to cancel all those policies – or aren’t you paying attention?

        If you want to get some perspective – what would you do if you ran an insurance company? Who would you insure? How much would you charge? Don’t forget you have to make a small profit – about 5-10% – and even one year of losses and you are fired. Go ahead, dipshit.

        1. I know it is Friday night and you probably had a tough week, but you may want to calibrate your sarcasm meter. This was meant as what the feds would “request” the insurers send out. Blame themselves and tout how wonderful OBC is. My name isn’t Tony, so odds are I am either a l or L libertarian.

      2. Dear Mr. Gullible,

        Pardon any mistakes; we are typing this with one hand, as the other is handcuffed to Barack Obama and he is on a sinking ship.

        The bad news is, it appears you have to go down with us. This is an unavoidable consequence of something we helped to bring about as it guaranteed us massive profits in a rigged market.

        The good news is, this is a luxury cruise. Please enjoy pate and champagne cocktails in the Neptune Lounge! (We understand you are a vegan teetotaller, but keep in mind this cruise was also designed as an educational experience.)

        Sincerely,
        Poindexter Exsurer

    2. Hazel,

      This has been done before, and the government has shut down these types of communications and essentially calling them ‘electioneering’.

      The government tried to block the phone companies from detailing government mandated charges in the past.

      I remember the government demanded a video showing the area of the Arctic Refuge where oil drilling would take place be taken down, because the desolate geography could be seen as a campaign commercial FOR drilling in the arctic.

      1. But in this case, the government is going to *require* insurance companies to explain all the amazing benefits they will get for twice as much money on the exchange.

        Honestly, no matter how kindly the insurance companies word it, it is going to smell like dung. A 55 year old woman is just not going to be excited at the prospect of maternity benefits. No matter how cheerfully you tell her how much better her coverage will be.

        This kind of thing will just come across as creepy and Orwellian. Which will make people rebel against ObamaCare even more.

        1. Funny, I hadn’t thought about that backfire. “Dear Mr. Burns, you are forgoing pediatric dentistry and maternity care by clinging bitterly to your old plan. Happy 85th to you, Sir.”

          1. at twice the premium and five times the deductible, designed to prevent you from collecting a dime of benefits from this wonderful knew coverage

  4. And when Nancy Pelosi was asked today what she made of the brouhaha surrounding Obamacare, she said: “We’ll be good, we’ll be good. We’ll do what we have to do, and that’s what we’ll do.”

    Nancy Pelosi drops by your house you better count the silverware after she leaves….thieving kunt!

    1. “We’ll do what we have to do, and that’s what we’ll do.”

      She’s Popeye the Sailor Man!

    2. Nancy Pelosi knows the Constitution like Richard Simmons knows vaginas.

      1. Stealing that. Thanks for sharing.

      2. She puts the crone in crony capitalism.

    3. Whom did she mean by “we”? We, the people? We the Dems? We in Congress?

  5. Give the guy a break. How was he supposed to know that buying insurance was hard? How was he supposed to know that IT is difficult. I mean he just turns on the computer and goes to ESPN and all the basketball stuff just shows up. That was easy. So was going to Amazon to buy anotehr copy of “Dreams of My Father.” How could anyone know that making a website or buying insurance would be any different? Why are you people always so negativ?. I mean he meant well, and that’s what really matters.

    1. I mean he meant well, and that’s what really matters.

      *** continuing the snark ***

      But “well” is turning out to be “fucking abyss”.

    2. Ya know, when I was working part-time, I went on this little website called “ehealthinsurance.com”. You might have heard of it. And you know what? It WAS as easy as buying something from Amazon. So.. I call bullshit. Buying health care online wasn’t that difficult to do. Of course, this was not a state-run website.

      1. “Of course, this was not a state-run website.”
        Well, in THAT case…

      2. But what about the evil profits they made from your purchase? How did you sleep at night?

        1. Sometimes I shudder at the fact that people are making money from supplying me with a product I want! The horror….. the horror

          1. I wonder if they made $3 per client… healthcare.gov took that much from every American (forcefully, of course) to build this malfunctioning piece of shit.

    3. He has probably never actually bought an insurance policy himself since he has always worked for a University of Government.

        1. I think University OF Government works pretty well.

      1. OneOut|11.15.13 @ 7:10PM|#
        “He has probably never actually bought an insurance policy himself since he has always worked for a University of Government.”

        Good point. He’s likely never tried to weigh the costs and benefits and therefore has no idea what most people who buy insurance directly must do.

    4. He runs the government like he writes his books–he lets someone else do it for him.

      1. You are on a roll Noelle, MOAR please.

  6. YEs, but seeing the rats try to climb out of the abyss is too much fun. Shadenfreude!!!

  7. Did he mention a “crisis of confidence?”

  8. It’s not “like buying a song on iTunes,” the president said. It’s “a much more complicated transaction.”

    Come on, he didn’t really say this, did he? Please tell me that I’m having a nightmare.

    1. You’re having a nightmare. And you’ll never wake up!

      BWAHAHAHAAA!!

    2. I mean, what the fuck. This asshole has completely fucked up the insurance industry and needlessly complicated millions of lives, and he says this?
      And nobody slapped him, or at least questioned him on this at a fucking press conference?

      1. “We chose a path that was the least disruptive,” he said.

        Holy fucking fuck!!
        Must stop reading and head to bar. Needz moar booooze.

        1. “I gave the least untruthful answer.”

          1. ‘Well, there’s some truthiness in in’.

      2. But he had good intentions! /DERP

  9. This skinny little Marxist has never been anything more than an engineered pile of shuck-and-jive bullshit. Hugo Chavez had more intellect.

    This entire mess is no surprise to anyone with half a brain.

  10. I really don’t get it.

    I was looking back at blog notes that I wrote right when Obamacare was passed, about three years ago.

    Other then the website glitch roll out, you could (and I did) predict pretty much everything that’s happened: rising prices, cancelled plans, deficit spending, penaltaxes too small, only the really bad off wanting to sign up, etc.

    However, I live in a country that found this out about 30 days ago.

    Really? Really?

    We have a government that can’t figure this out? A media that can’t read for comprehension and apply the basic law of supply and demand?

    Congratulations, democrats. You just took the illusion that wise central planners can guide us all towards a socialist paradise, and jammed it in one of your own collectivist eye sockets. Enjoy.

    1. Having an understanding of basic economic principles does tend to make one feel like Casandra, doesn’t it?

      1. How do you know what my wife feels like ?

      2. I believe I even pointed out how much this was going to fuck the very youth who voted for him in 2008.

        God, it’s delicious thinking about all the hipster cultists back in college in 2008 , and how they are all turning 26 now.

        1. I think I’d still take him over McCain.

        2. Second thought, maybe not. The office of POTUS surely would’ve given him a heart attack and I would’ve loved to see Palin’s work. Could’ve been epic.

          1. Palin, at least, doesn’t believe her own bullshit.

    2. I had a long discussion on Facebook last night with several left of center friends. One, who has a PhD in economics (which I do not) was saying that if there was no minimum requirement for insurance people would be incentivized to not buy coverage. I tried to point out that is only true if they are allowed to walk away from unpaid bills. The fear of a large financial burden is what will make people buy insurance, and for most a catastrophic hospitalization plan will do just fine and be affordable.

      1. The ACA really gets the “essential benefits” list ass backwards.

        People don’t want soup-to-nuts coverage of everything from pediatric dental care to mental health. What they really want and need is something that covers life-threatening illnesses – and lets you see the best doctors possible when you really need it.

        What they really want is insurance that is LESS comprehensive, but more robust in terms of paying for everything when you are really seriously ill. Almost everyone would happily give up birth control pills and annual check-ups if it meant they could go to see the top cancer specialist in the city and have it covered at 80% of the cost.

        1. Problem is, foregoing that annual checkup can cause a little problem to become a big problem requiring the attention of a cancer specialist 20 years later.

          1. Are you flipping serious, you think they are running tests for cancer in a physical…epic DERP.

            1. No, he’s actually right on this one. Fine, they don’t screen for everything when you have a physical, but they do screen age appropriately and based on your truthful (you did tell your doc the truth, didn’t you?) H&P answers they may order more specific tests.

              On the other hand how many people actually go GET that preventive care? I don’t… Medicaid recipients sure as hell don’t.

            2. Many types of cancer have early warning signs that will arouse suspicion during a physical. An unexplained new cyst, changes in bowel behavior, intermittent bleeding in an unusual place, etc.

              1. True. A PSA test for man-ass cancer is actually pretty cheap and effective. Catch it early and you’ve a good chance of bucking it

          2. Who said forgo the annual check up? It’s only once a year, it’s anticipated, pay it out of a medical savings account. That will allow one to shop around for the doctor they like at a price they like.

            How much would auto repairs cost if everyone paid a $50 copay and never asked the price, instead just presented their auto insurance card?

            Having the routine and expected expenses paid out of pocket will create price competition between service providers, helping to lower the cost.

          3. High deductible plans actually pay for those in many cases, because the insurer knows catching it quickly costs less.

    3. THIS… unfortunately I think the point is lost on most people

  11. “a moral authority (people need health insurance)”

    Need is not a source of moral authority (whatever that is), and this is why freedom, individualism, and capitalism are not winning: the unwillingness to challenge the morality of altruism.

    Freedom and altruism are not compatible; the necessary political corollary of altruism is collectivism. Break the vicious cycle: stop attacking the left for the absurd impracticality of their theories, and attack them on moral terms. Because the morality of altruism is *entirely* derived from mystic revelation and emotional whim, altruism cannot survive the rational application of reason.

    Break the cycle: when the right is willing to attack the leftoids on moral terms, they will completely fall apart. Altruism is the only weapon they have, but it is a terrible one.

    1. Hear, here, Libertarius.

      You libertarians here need to stop with the snark and joking around, for gods sake. Go read some philosophy. It’s not about stupidity, incompetence, arbitrary presidential edicts, or whether they will ever get the god damned web site working. It is about the morality of altruism. That’s what is driving all of this. Kill altruism and you kill statism once and for all. Nothing less will do it.

      I have just recently started to visit here, and frankly expected more statements like this one.

      Thank you, Libertarius.

      1. David, I too enjoy the more philosophical comments here, and have learned a bit. Be patient with the younguns.

        Altruism is the coin of religion, along with guilt. You must discredit religion to destroy altruism. That’s a tall order.

        1. Christianity teaches we have an obligation to be VOLUNTARILY charitable to others, and will be judged by the level of our selfishness.

          1. “…an obligation to be VOLUNTARILY charitable to others,”

            Turning voluntary acts into obligations through guilt and coercion. Exactly.

            1. I’m unaware of anyone coerced to practice Christianity in the US.

              As for guilt, well, that’s just a form of persuasion. Don’t you Snobjectivists at least ostensibly consider persuasion to be allowable?

      2. It is about the morality of altruism. That’s what is driving all of this. Kill altruism and you kill statism once and for all. Nothing less will do it.

        Altruism and freedom coexisted just fine for the first 150-200 years of this country — hard to believe it’s what’s driving statism. The enemy of statism is institutions and community independent of the state. A society of isolated individuals who don’t trust or give a shit about each other would be a statist’s wet dream.

    2. I forget is A A? Or is it B?

      1. You will find out soon enough, my friend.

    3. Why do you hate children and old people?

      The only way I can see of attacking supposed altruism is by pointing out facts (the elderly to youth wealth ratio is at record levels and yet we never hear about THAT inequality!) which never win in a purely emotional argument, or to try to convince someone that forced charity is really just another word for theft. Except that the forced charity will always be at the expense of the “rich” who really didn’t earn it, deserve it, or my personal favorite, “can afford it.”

      The is the seductively evil beauty of populism plus statism. The only way to win is for a majority of the population to become rational. Good luck with that.

      1. Altruism states that moral good is only achieved by sacrificing yourself to others. Another in need obligates me to help that person regardless of the circumstances. Any action I take to establish or maintain a value for myself is a sin if another establishes their need to me. I may love my child more than anything in the world. Logically, then if I value my child, it is sinful for me to feed my child if other children are in need.

        Religion teaches the same only the sacrifice is not to society or others, but to God. Abraham’s faith was tested by God commanding him to kill his son Isaac. Sacrifice was expected to establish Abraham’s morality.

        Both altruism and religion teach the sacrifice of the individual is a sin. Egoism requires no sacrifices. Egoism says the moral is to support ourselves and each of us determines our own values. God does not determine those values and society does not determine those values. I have friends or people that I love. I will help them in time of need if I can and if I judge it is through no fault of their own. I will be happy to help because they are of value to me. It is for me to determine, though, not someone else. It is my life, I determine all values to my life.

        1. Oops. Both altruism and religion teach the sacrifice of the individual is a VIRTUE.

          1. altruism also casts personal action in terms of not expecting anything in return, and in accepting this and acting voluntarily. Religion, to an extent, relies on some level of coercion, be it an appeal to guilt (you have been blessed and should help those who are not) or outright coercion (god will be pissed off and you’ll burn….).

            1. Persuasion is not coercion.

  12. Stuff like this makes me yearn for a Rick Santorum presidency just so the left can see how corrupting and dangerous Obama’s selective enforcement and rule by decree is.

    1. I always tell my libtard friends, why do you want to give the government so much power? The benevolent Dems won’t be in office forever. Someday Sarah Palin will be in charge of administering the PPACA, and using the law as written she’ll force pregnant rape victims to have babies, deny AIDS drugs to gays, interpret “minority” as Evangelical Christians, and use the poor for dogfood. I mean, maybe we shouldn’t build these gigantic Frankenlevers of power.

      1. Unmasked, great points.

      2. That’s not inevitable. If Texas goes blue we’re going to have a permanent donkey White House.

        Enter “immigration reform”….

        1. Oh, I don’t mean it WILL happen; I just mean that pendulums swing, Rethuglicans steal elections, nothing is guaranteed, etc.

          In my view, the next step after comprehensive immigration reform is civil war.

  13. How can the “smartest man” (1) on the planet also be a complete idiot (0) simultaneously? Is Obama some kind of qubit?

  14. And for all of the shit-sandwiches we’ve had to go through already, the intent of the thing is to have more people INSURED!
    Now that is one hell of a goal! Healthier? Nope. More people with access to certain medical treatments? Nope. Getting cheaper medical care? Nope. Just more people with insurance.
    What a pathetic performance…

    1. Kabuki theater laced with a circle jerk – you don’t feel that you are getting your tax $$$ worth, yet?

  15. Everything about Obamacare implementation has created the perception of anarchy

    Anarchy? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    I think the word you’re looking for is tyranny.

    1. No, this is the real meaning of the word ‘anarchy’, no matter what absurdly rationalistic and farcical theories (by Murray Rothbard) you have been gullible enough to accept.

      Rothbard and the anarchy mystics present anarchy as some kind of futuristic, radically evolved political construct that man’s current evolution is too limited to attain; where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, the fucking Marxists have been saying the same thing for 150 years.

      But Marxists don’t let reality get in the way of their bullshit theory, and the anarchists are no better.

      1. Anarchy = “without rulers”. The rulers here are fucking everything up. So, yes, it is their fault.

        Take you poinltless Rothbard hate and jam it up your ass, he doesn’t have anything to do with what is being discussed.

        1. People have come to define anarchy with chaos, thus equating no rulers with chaos.

      2. This isn’t anarchy. This is very big government doing what it does, in spades.

  16. Everything about Obamacare implementation has created the perception of anarchy — the arbitrary implementation of laws, people losing the plans they have, the way it was passed and the problems it has caused in Washington

    So anarchy — “no government” — is epitomized by a government scheme implemented by the government, causing problems that that government tried to patch over, and causing problems in the statist heart of government, DC?

    The fuck?

    1. CatoTE said it with more brevity.

      1. No he didn’t. Anarchy is a rationalistic pipe dream of rabid subjectivist whim-worshippers, so in actuality, it’s a nightmare.

        The true desire of right-anarchists is to escape reality, the necessity of objectivity, and the necessity of political philosophy for that matter. They refer to the “NAP” as if it were some tribal dogma that requires no inductive reference, like the ooga-booga of primordial natives.

        Murray Rothbard, and all anarchists, are philosophical lightweights (and I’m being too generous); let me give you a clue on what an “axiom” is. Modern philosophy, in all its rationalistic decadence and degeneracy, has adopted a very bad habit of arbitrarily snatching concepts and declaring them to be axiomatic; the “NAP” is NOT an axiom.

        There are only *five* concepts under the sun which can be properly considered to be axiomatic: existence, identity, causality, consciousness, volition. The “NAP” is a shabby attempt to snatch an axiom out of thin air (actually, Rothbard stole it from the Objectivist Ethics) and then deduce the facts of reality from it.

        Rothbard, like Marx and Hegel and Kant and Plato and *all* rationalists, uses deduction as a means of philosophical goal-seeking; they start with what they want to be true, then select a jumpoff point and a deductive chain which takes them to the conclusion they have already reached. No good.

        1. Fuck off, Randroid.

          1. I think Libertarius is applying ideas creatively and logically and not spouting ideas robotically, as your cryptic smear suggests.

            You, on the other hand, have nothing to say, apparently.

            Nihilism is a pretty ugly thing, donchaknow.

            1. Who said anything about Nihilism?

              1. One form of nihilism is the negation of moral values. Mr. Biggins comment to Libertarius’ very moral statement was a good representation of nihilism in my opinion. I took the liberty of pointing it out is all.

                1. Looks like a straw man to me.

                  Saying “Fuck off, Randoid” doesn’t make anybody a Nihilist.

                  1. I do not know Mr. Biggins and judging by his comment I don’t care to know him, either. I have no idea if he is a nihilist or just a a jerk. But his comment was nihilistic in my opinion and I stated why.

                    1. So if you say “fuck off” when a fundie states his moral opinion that homosexuals should be stoned to death, you’re a nihilist?

                    2. Saying “Fuck off, Randroid.” or “Fuck off, Fundie” are both ad hominem attacks. Thinking some of Rand’s ideas are true is not a sufficient argument.

                      Also, only a pussy who say “Fuck Off” in an internet forum. If you don’t give a shit, just don’t reply. There’s no point in letting everyone know you don’t give a shit. Unless you’re a Peter Keating.

        2. Do you have any idea how far away we are from Anarchy?

          Do you realize how far we could go towards Anarchy–and still only get to having a small government?

          The anarchists and the mini-archists are fellow travelers until we get to the point where the government is small enough that we can really think about whether we want to put it out of its misery–and we have so far to go before we get anywhere near there.

          Why be unnecessarily divisive until then?

          1. The thing is, that both anarchy and big government have the same result in leaving society in chaos. Anyone can come along and disrupt your life.

            When individual rights are protected, there is no chaos because you can make decisions and not have them interrupted by an arbitrary outside force.

            As far as I can tell, libertarians and Objectivists (your anarchists and min-archists) will disagree on this point because they have a different conception of anarchy which is at odds with the ordinary person’s understanding of it. Objectivism is consistent with the ordinary person’s conception.

            This use of the word anarchy is disruptive to the libertarian world-view. So I think you need to decide: is this use of the word an accurate description of what’s going on? From one day to the next, we don’t know what’s going to happen to the insurance market. What is the essential characteristic of anarchy, and do the facts or reality concur with the libertarian conception of it or the ordinary person’s?

        3. let me give you a clue on what an “axiom” is.

          You’d need to have a clue first.

          There are only *five* concepts under the sun which can be properly considered to be axiomatic: existence, identity, causality, consciousness, volition.

          What are you, the Pope of Logic or something?

          What makes an axiom an axiom is not the content of the statement, it is their role in an argument as unproven/unprovable starting points. Axioms are, by their very nature, freely chosen. So if you want to take the existence of volition as an axiom, in the face of the evidence of behavioral psychology’s utter destruction of that belief in the 20th century, you’re free to do so.

          Whether the audience you’re aiming for will accept your axiom, of course, is the problem.

          1. No. You are making the same mistake all philosophical rationalists make: you think an axiom is a matter of linguistic proposition rather than reference to reality. Your fundamental mistake is holding the primacy of consciousness metaphysics; you hold that consciousness holds primacy over existence, so the derivation of axioms is simply a matter of constructing propositional phrases.

            I could not possibly explain the primacy of existence, least of all to someone as corrupted as yourself, in the space of an internet post. So I’ll put it this way: it doesn’t matter if “the audience” is willing to accept my axioms or not, they are insuperable because existence bears primacy over consciousness. Existence is axiomatic, that should be simple enough; if you deny existence, you negate yourself and exempt yourself from any further consideration. Identity is axiomatic; if there is no identity, you can name nothing, refer to nothing, say or think nothing. Causality is axiomatic; you cannot deny causality without enacting causality (in the construction of a self-defeating argument) to attempt to do so. Consciousness is axiomatic; you cannot deny consciousness except by a conscious process. And lastly, volition *is* axiomatic, because you and the behaviorists and the materialists cannot deny volition without making the choice to do so.

        4. Foaming at the mouth has been a recognized liability for Objectivists for some time. One would think that time and perspective would at least shift the tactical approach (finding Kant in the woodpile, lecturing on first principles and general though-policing) might do their cause wonders without compromising their worldview.

          I’ve read your rants against ANCAP and Rothbard many times, and each one is confirmation that you have scant familiarity with, much less an understanding of the ideas against which you rail. There is quite a bit of Rothbard that is consistent with (perhaps even inspired by) Rand’s ideas. But I suppose to suggest such a thing would be heresy.

          My apostasy from Objectivism began with emotional reaction to people like you. Understanding that my emotions were not a basis for knowing the world (something I learned from Rand), led me to a libertarianism that I believe is more complete than the monotonal hymns of Objectivism.

          Here’s hoping you discover the same.

          1. If you want to give an argument, you could present some facts. Is Rothbard similar to Rand? In what way? Instead you gave us some tibits from your spiritual journey towards “enlightenment” that sounds like it came from a liberal going to India and joining a dharma.

            From what I know about Rothbard (which isn’t much), his views on most philosophical issues stem from the non-agression principle, which is very different from Rand’s reasoning, even though she also believes in the same principle, it is surrounded by other ideas that are completely different.

            You don’t like the way an Objectivist here is arguing. That doesn’t mean Objectivism is false. It’s a flaw in your reasoning if you made your decision to leave Objectivism because you don’t like the way Objectivists argue (I’m not sure if that’s what you believe but it your post seems to suggest that).

            Your post just reads like you want people to attack Objectivism on non-essential grounds (it’s “monotonal”). As much as I love music, this is not a valid argument, because you have not given the reasons why it’s “monotonal” or why “monotonality” in a philosophy is bad. Your monotonality is an anti-concept, just like “extremism.” Just as extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, monotonality in the defense of truth is no vice, either.

          2. Your response is as vapid and meaningless as what you’re responding to.

            1. If you agree that the comment I was responding to was meaningless, my pointing that out cannot be meaningless, so your comment is self-contradictory.

              1. Also, you misrepresent the content of my post. I didn’t just say his post was meaningless, I also pointed out flaws in his reasoning.

  17. “We learned that buying insurance is complex business …”

    Not necessarily more complex than buying Geico Auto Insurance. Maybe ObamaCareLess just needs a warm, fuzzy gecko to make it run properly.

    1. so stupid even a caveman can do it. Or hipster guitarists telling his buddy, “happier than…”; or the money man (though a sub-market of Auto Insurance)- Gee and that’s just *one* auto insurer – think I found the problem to health insurance. No advertising.

  18. “because he would never be ‘stupid enough to say this is going to be as easy as shopping around on Amazon or Travelocity.'”

    He was actually stupid enough.

  19. Obama’s creed: “When in doubt, pass the blame”

    1. I wish he would pass some blame around.

      Why hasn’t Sebelius been fired yet?

      1. Shhhh. We like the team as it is. No need to start fixing things now…

  20. “What we said was, ‘It will be as easy as Kayak or Amazon, but much more complicated and in reality a total failure.'”

  21. Hoke-kay, so what happens next? Will Obama wait all the way until Nov 30 (a Saturday) to make his Grim Announcement that the website isn’t functioning as well as he’d like it to? And then what? He feels the pain of those who can’t get subsidies and announces his next unilateral, unicornal measure to save his political hide?

    1. The suspense is killing me….actually I’m getting convulsive spasms of laughter daily and we all know laughter is the best medicine.

      The Great One is saving thousands of lives with as we speak, what a humanitarian.

    2. I’m betting on Denial. The Dems will claim that the website is working better. Cherry pick some bullshit statistics nobody would ever use unless they were trying to justify the shit and claim success. Then they’ll send out the marching orders to their minions to call any one who disagrees a liar.

      1. Oh man, oh man, you guys are making me all jittery and giggly.

      2. What JWatts said…its like he can see the future!

      3. “Then they’ll send out the marching orders to their minions to call any one who disagrees a liar.”

        Or call them something:
        —————
        “The PROBLEM:::
        BREAKING!!
        Rep. Gohmert upset Obama’s Israel policy not based on Biblical prophecies
        (Raw Story) A tea party lawmaker cited the Bible during a speech Wednesday on the House floor criticizing the Obama administration for its treatment of Israel.
        “There are many who have been aware of Scripture, and it has often been a guide in our relations with Israel,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). “‘Some of us believe that the Bible is accurate. Certainly, so many prophesies”
        ————–
        “TEA PARTY HEALTH CARE
        Tea Party Audience Says Let Uninsured Patient Die http://tiny.cc/9k7jsw

        Yes, these are both posted to an article re O’care; the second is a lie worthy of shreek.
        http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05el…..alth-bill/

  22. Obama’s presidentcy is affirmative action on the grandest scale! It didn’t matter to the progressive limpdick media elites that this guy had zero executive leadership experience or ability, and only two undistinguished years as a U.S. senator. They had to have an African-American in the oval office no matter how unqualified to atone for this country’s racist past. The Peter Principle states that people rise to the the level of their own incompetence,and this guy proves it in spades(no pun intended), what an unmitigated DISASTER! Thank goodness for 22nd amendment.

    1. I don’t think that’s entirely fair. Obama promised constitutionality, support for privacy, overseas troop reductions, a saner drug policy, and more socially liberal policies. Compared to batshit insane McCain, who pretty much promised that he was going to screw the country, there was at least a chance Obama was going to work out, inexperienced as he was. OK, so Obama has turned out to be an incompetent blow-hard and a liar and he shouldn’t have gotten reelected, but it wasn’t unreasonable to elect him in 2008 given the alternative.

  23. There are numerous nationwide online health insurance brokers. The reason that none of them put in successful bids was because they knew that no sane company could follow the 8000+ pages of regulations required to develop the ACA websites… Enter CGI.

    Developing b2b websites is not astrophysics… it’s engineering – it’s a known development process requiring creativity and technical prowess. Sure the developers could be awful or they could be regulated into creating insane amounts of untested code (as opposed to using well used libraries) or they could be both. What we are looking at here is both.

    If the rumored 600 million lines of code is correct – and god I hope it is not for the sanity of programmers everywhere – but if it is then this website will never be delivered. Period.

    1. this website will never be delivered. Period.

      Yup.

    2. Perhaps that was the plan all along: “show” that choice doesn’t work (even the piss poor choice of Obamacare), and then offer single payer (Medicare for all) as the only way out.

  24. So many new names here recently. Just a few months ago half this thread would have been two Canadians talking about maple syrup or leaves or something.

    1. We try to filter the Canucks out….you know how those people are!

    2. I’ve been lurking on H&R since about 2006, just never posted anything yet.

  25. This really is just hilarious:

    “I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity, a week before the Web site opens, if I thought that it wasn’t going to work.”

    I hope that’s his epitaph. Remember the dark days of 2007-2008 when the majority of the country literally thought he was the savior of the whole f***ing world?

    1. How did he not know the website wasn’t going to work?!?

      1. This boggles the mind. I mean this is Stalinesque, the level of paranoia and fog that must exist in his palace. I keep saying, the tell-all books…

  26. my best friend’s ex-wife makes $74 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for five months but last month her pay was $21054 just working on the laptop for a few hours. explanation……………………..

    ???????
    http://www.tec30.com
    ???????

  27. “Everything about Obamacare implementation has created the perception of anarchy”

    That is unfair to anarchy. Anarchy means absence of government. Obamacare, on the other hand, is too much government: bad, incompetent government.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.